Portal talk:Main/Archive 2008
This is the discussion for the Main Page. Here the layout and contents of the Main Page can be discussed. If you have a question about Star Trek, please post it at the Reference Desk. For issues concerning the policies and operation of Memory Alpha, please go to Memory Alpha:Ten Forward. Previous discussions: 2004 archive, 2005 archive, 2006 archive, 2007 archive. ---- Where to watch in the UK. I hope I've put this in the right place. Star Trek: The Next Generation is now showing on the Bravo channel in the UK every day at 11pm. It wasn't in the 'where to watch' section, so I just thought I'd say so someone can change it. :) 00:01, 7 January 2008 (UTC) Edit: Also, Star Trek: Enterprise is shown every Monday at 9pm on Virgin 1 in the UK. 00:02, 7 January 2008 (UTC) ::TNG has now started airing on Virgin 1 and it has replaced the 8 o'clock DS9. DS9 now airs weekdays at 2pm, TNG following at 3 then again at 8pm. I'm not sure about the weekends. 81.99.156.5 14:45, 24 March 2008 (UTC) Hi, TNG has been replaced on Bravo by VOY - same time slot, monday through fridays at 11pm. Tng moving When did they move tng from spike to G4? User:Bleep196 januaury 2008 :They didn't "move" it. They were both showing it at the same time for awhile, then Spike dropped it. --OuroborosCobra talk 23:27, 14 January 2008 (UTC) G4 also appears to have dropped TNG. In fact, they seem to have dropped their Monday run of six TOS episodes as well. Maybe the main page should be changed to reflect that. (I tried to, but that part is locked.) - Adambomb1701 17:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC) :: Changed to reflect what? Let me (or someone know) and we can get it done. --Alan del Beccio 18:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC) The fact that G4 seems to have dropped both TOS and TNG, and Spike is no longer running TNG. - Adambomb1701 16:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC) :::That is the exact same thing as what you just said. The "Where To Watch" section has been updated. Thanks. - Adambomb1701 18:40, 29 January 2008 (UTC) Main page panel length Can anyone think of a way to keep the panels on the Main Page equal in length, as is done at Memory Beta? It really doesn't look very good when one side is lower or higher than the other. Even if one of the panels has a big empty space between the text and the end of the panel, it will still look better than it does now. --From Andoria with Love 08:54, 18 January 2008 (UTC) :Personally, I like the differnt length panels, to each his own I guess. I find that having big gaps in panels or between texts just to keep things the same length looks ugly and unorganized, and as someone who has made a couple of personal wiki's before, I often come to MA for the panel coding, simply because of how it works. With that said, I am uncertain on how to carry this out, other then placing extra spaces in between the text and a pain staking proccess every time it is updated due to the changing lengths.--Terran Officer 14:10, 19 January 2008 (UTC) The link to the official site in today's news Hi there. The link to the official Paramount site for the new movie in today's news is wrong. It's www.paramount.startrek instead of www.paramount.com/startrek– Spock2266 12:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC) Error in Viola Simpson quote on the front page. She said, "Maybe HE'S singing to that man," per the earlier note by Gillian Taylor that the song is always sung by the male. --Ds093 00:51, 7 February 2008 (UTC) Picture of the day, 20/2 Why is the picture of the day titled "Happy Birthday DeForest Kelley"? His birthday was a month ago.– Spock2266 06:53, 20 February 2008 (UTC) :I removed the note for now, and the images can probably be swapped around later. As a general note though, should we really be wishing a happy birthday to...the deceased? Doesn't seem right to me...– Cleanse talk 09:37, 20 February 2008 (UTC) RSS Feed for news only? are there RSS feeds for the news section & news section for ST11 respectively? i don't want the RSS feed for the recent changes to the entire wiki. :See Forum:Possibility of getting Memory Alpha news in RSS?. --OuroborosCobra talk 00:27, 2 March 2008 (UTC) Caption error under picture of day The word "prophesized" is a mistake - the verbal form of prophecy is, in English, "prophesy," past tense "prophesied." The English verbal tendency towards -ize words is a reflection of the Greek -izo (baptizo in Greek becomes baptize in English, evangelizo becomes evangelize, et cetera), but there is no "prophesizo" word - the Greek is "propheteuo." The main page is protected, so I am not able to make the change. 17:25, 4 March 2008 (UTC) april fools day plan i recomend that for april fools day we lock the main page and save a copy of some of the longest/most important pages 15:54, 17 March 2008 (UTC) Portal:Main Hey y'all, I was wondering what you guys thing of this: User:Nat.tang/Sandbox Main Page ? It's a slightly modified version of the Main Page that IMO is a bit more organized that the current main page. I just like to hear your thoughts about it. Nat.tang 21:58, 19 March 2008 (UTC) :Looks pretty good to me. Not only does it look better organized, the columns are also even. I like it. :) --From Andoria with Love 00:49, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::If you're looking for votes, I say yes to the new one. It does look more organized. Also, for some reason, the Featured Article section just looks better on the left. Way cool!!! ----[[User:Mainphramephreak| Willie]][[User Talk:Mainphramephreak| LLAP]] 00:55, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :::I thinks it looks good too.--UESPA 01:01, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::::I like the box around the titles and the article of the week on the other side. So I'd say yes. --From ''TrekkyStar''[[User Talk:TrekkyStar| Peace and Long Life]] 01:08, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::::: Could we have at least given this discussion some time before implementing the changes? --Alan 02:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :Yah, this should have been discussed a bit more before the changes were made, in order to give others the chance to potentially oppose the changes or offer suggestions. --From Andoria with Love 02:59, 20 March 2008 (UTC) oops...I guess I should have waited...but the deed has been done...if you want to revert, go ahead... Nat.tang 03:31, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::I like it. Cleaner and with even columns. Great work Nat.tang!– Cleanse talk 05:20, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::It may look nice, but I show up today, ~16 hours after my last visit, and what's happened, but an entire redo on the front page. 16 hours is not enough to discuss everything, talk about it, get consensus on the new look and feel, and then install it. :::::::Seriously folks. What in Hell were you thinking? -- Sulfur 14:36, 20 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::::I completely agree with Alan and Sulfur - this has been happening just too quick. The main page suggestion was initially posted to my talk page, where I stated that I personally like the way the section headers look, but that it would be appropriate to discuss this on this talk page first. With discussion, I was referring to a process where people actually had time to comment - not some rush job of posting a link here, and then start to move pages mere hours later. I haven't even had the time to look at the actual code of the page. So, it might be best to remove the changes for some more days, and continue a discussion. -- Cid Highwind 15:14, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::I have to agree with Cid, Sulfur, and Alan. I was looking at this stuff yesterday, and initially I couldn't even figure out what had changed, because when I looked at Portal:Main and the sub page with the proposed new portal, I didn't see anything different. The problem was that the change had already been made before I had even seen that a discussion was opened on it, and I was one of the ones lucky enough to have a message on my talk page about this discussion, linking me here. That means I got sent an email telling me this was going on, and I was still to slow to beat the change. Way too fast. --OuroborosCobra talk 17:17, 20 March 2008 (UTC) :I agree with Cid, Alan, Sulfur, and Cobra. Oh, wait... I already agreed above. Nevermind... --From a College Campus with Love 12:41pm EST, 20 March 2008 ::::::::::So it will be reverted then? Anyway, the panel thing was supposed to make the main page simple, and compartmentalize the parts of the page. I don't like how the titles have been taken out of the panels and put into these numbered template parameters. Also, I don't really like the look of the headers. So if we are voting, I would go back to the old setup. --Bp 17:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::I agree with Shran, Cid, Alan, Sulfur, Bp, and Cobra... "and you know how that makes me crazy". This needed serious, extensive discussion as it affects the most important page on the site. One major issue is that the page no longer refers to the site CSS, which is crucial in ensuring a common style across all pages. I shall revert back to the original, as soon as I figure out all the changes that have to be undone (of which there are many). Reverted to previous style and formatting. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 17:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::Getting back to the stylistic matters: ::::::My main gripe with the current setup is that the columns aren't even. Could we fix that?– Cleanse 23:50, 21 March 2008 (UTC) It's always possible, but IMO, not with the template. Nat.tang 02:30, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Here is option 2: User:Nat.tang/Sandbox Main Page 3/test. Cheers, Nat.tang 03:39, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::::OK. If this continues... could we perhaps first discuss if we even need a new main page at all? Identify problems with the current one, suggestions to change one thing or another? And then (not now, immediately) find a way to make it work? The current main page has gone through several iterations of code and layout before being implemented - and it seems to work, for the most part, as the only problem currently identified is the one of uneven columns. This is not nearly big enough of a problem to go and tear down the whole system in a hurry. Also, if it is just a suggestion for formatting changes, those should be implemented through our CSS anyway... -- Cid Highwind 10:53, 22 March 2008 (UTC) Well there is option two above....it doesn't look much different that the current set up with very few difference. The differences: (1) instead of multiple panels that make up the "core"/"body"/"centre", there are just two. (2) it does use a table-within-a-table format. Granted some people don't like it, but it is the only way possible if we want even tables. (3) The sections have been organized in the same fashion as my last proposal: leftside = Article, DYK, Where to watch, Editing MA; rightside = News, Today in Trek History, Upcoming releases. (4) the panels are even. The similarities: (1) they all use the "style=border:1px outset #(hex colour); background:#(hex colour);" (2) They all use the same colour schemes as the previous. Cheers, Nat.tang 13:37, 22 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::Well, in reply to Cid, I just thought that since we are discussing the main page, I'd voice my only real problem with it, namely the uneven columns. I agree that that alone is insufficient reason to completely overhaul the main page, but if we do overhaul it, that's a "feature" I'd like to see. ::::::In reply to Nat.tang's suggestion linked above, I'd remove the "region" headings in the "Where to Watch" section. Kind of pointless with 5 countries and 3 regions. The current "Where to Watch" set-up is fine. – Cleanse 01:23, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::::::::::The columns can not be even. The news changes length, and the Today in Trek History panel varies daily from 1 to 50 items. --Bp 19:45, 23 March 2008 (UTC) Yes the length of the text changes, however, in User:Nat.tang/Sandbox Main Page 3/test the panels always stays at an even length with each other. Nat.tang 19:59, 23 March 2008 (UTC) ::::: Nat.tang: When are you going to address whether or not any of these changes are needed? It has been mentioned once or twice-- the necessity of all this-- and you have seemed to make every effort to ignore the main question that addresses this issue. Judging from the comments above, this whole situation has irritated a lot of people, and it would be nice if you/we could stop focusing on "fixing" the problem and instead focus on whether or not there even *is* a problem. Thanks --Alan 01:44, 26 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, I believe that changes are needed. There are a few problems with the current revision that need to be fixed. (1) Although the heading underline is within and aligned with the panels when using Internet Explorer and Firefox, they are out of alignment with the panel when someone is using a Mac-based browser, such as Safari. (2) The panels (not the text) are not align which basically creates a lot of unneeded "whitespace". Both these problems are fixed in User:Nat.tang/Sandbox Main Page 3/test. And if you read the comments above, they were irritated with the fact that I act way too quickly in term of implementing my last proposal. Nat.tang 17:31, 27 March 2008 (UTC) :Nat.tang, I think we should have a discussion on whether the community thinks these changes are, indeed, needed. While I liked the way it looked (with a few exceptions), your improvements have not been approved by the community... nor has their necessity. Basically, the primary focus of discussion should be: do we, as a community, need this. I think that's what Alan was trying to say... maybe. That said, it would probably be best if you stopped editing the Main Page panels until we come to some kind of consensus. --From Andoria with Love 21:59, 27 March 2008 (UTC) ok...but I have edited the main page since my changes were reverted. All I did was present a new proposal for consideration: One that won't sock anyone and that isn't far from the current revision. Granted, the community needs to reach consensus whether or not changes are needed, but I have a proposal and if I want to present it, I will present it. I'm not directly editing the main page at this point in time, just presenting a proposal. Nat.tang 23:49, 27 March 2008 (UTC) A problem that I find is that when someone places a proposal out there, it seems that no one is interested in discussing it, until someone does something BOLD and "radical". It's frustrating. Nat.tang 20:03, 28 March 2008 (UTC) ::::: Obviously you haven't mastered the art of patience, we're not wikipedia, so you shouldn't expect the same immediate results here that you might expect there. Silence here is not consensus, so I won't expect you changes to last long. --Alan 03:56, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Yes, I know it's not Wikipedia, but the fact is that I haven't seen anything that would point to meaningful discussion at all or even the interest of discussion. Since my first few edits on this project, all that I've been getting is a wall. And you know what, that is why my patience is running out. Whenever I try to introduce something into the Project: Wall. Whenever I try to discuss my proposals: Wall. Yes, I want to help the project and take initiative, but if walls is what I constantly get from people, then you should understand why I'm frustrated and you should understand why my patience is running very thin. Nat.tang 04:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Blind reverts as well: http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Template:Panel&curid=67854&diff=800495&oldid=800481 http://memory-alpha.org/en/index.php?title=Portal%3AMain&diff=800490&oldid=800483. The first one, the revert made no change, but yet one individual has determined that because it was an edit by me that it needs to be reverted. The second one is now missing a vital panel which I had included as a result of separating a page that should have been a long time ago when a separate Where to watch heading was created. I'm telling you: Wall. again. Nat.tang 04:18, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::Nat.tang, I understand your frustration, but unfortunately you have taken the reverse order on many of these things, at least as I have observed. You do an enormous amount of work, to be sure, the problem is that you seem to be doing this work before finding out if there is a want or interest in the ideas. We've seen that here, and in other proposals, such as the "Military Conflicts" template. I would say there is little response here to your proposal largely because people seem to be content with the current main page (one which was created after much debate and work, I would add). I would suggest that you change tactics. Don't do the huge amount of work before finding out if it is even wanted by the community. Otherwise, if it is rejected (possibly in any form), you are going to rightfully and understandably feel frustrated. I must say, though, the main page is not the place for "boldness". --OuroborosCobra talk 04:23, 31 March 2008 (UTC) I made that change in the first place because I've noticed that some people were not content with the main page due to the fact that the panels are not even. So I tried my first proposal. Most people didn't like it. That I understand because the style was significantly different to that of the original. The second one is different from the first as it looked almost like the original with a very similar style with one exception: the panels were even. Nat.tang 04:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::I understand that, but then just as with your first proposal, you did not wait for consensus. Indeed, on this very page, there isn't even consensus before this discussion of concern over the uneven panels. One person said they did not like it, the other person said they did. I'm trying to help you feel less frustrated in the future with this suggestion, I really am, but you can either take the advice to discuss before taking the huge amount of work in making a new main page, or making a new sidebar, etc., or you can continue risking doing a lot of work that in the end is rejected by the community. The choice is, of course, yours. I know what I would do... --OuroborosCobra talk 04:38, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :::::::::::I had prepared a response to the proposal, but unfortunately was unwell yesterday, and unable to post it until now. -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 08:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) Response to proposal Having investigated the proposal in full, here is my analysis: On a first glance, the proposed page (Portal:Main/Sandbox/Proposal_March_2008) looks quite reasonable - there is no significant visual difference from the existing page. However, going into the code reveals that the presentation is actually dependent on an entirely different page, User:Nat.tang/Sandbox Main Page 3. This apparently serves no purpose other than to obfuscate the coding - such information can easily be presented on a single page. This method of presentation also makes changes somewhat difficult - adding a new panel, for instance, requires several changes to be made, instead of simply adding a new call on the main page. The page contains significant style tagging. Compare the following lines of code, in both cases located at the top of the main panel section: From Portal: Main: * :*''This line originates from the template.'' From new proposal: Such extensive usage of direct formatting is inefficient, and completely ignores the CSS code already in use on the site. Margins and padding for main page panels are already encoded into the site CSS in the current case - if the newer version is adopted, these new style requirements must be incorporated into the site CSS to simplify coding and allow the use of these settings in other locations if needed. The current main page is split 50-50, this new edition splits 55-45 in favour of the left hand side, with different cellpadding values for each side - exactly what purpose does this serve? Why should certain sections have greater dominance? And what was the reasoning behind where each panel would go - why swap the positioning of Latest News and AotW, for example? The "Editing Memory Alpha" panel is included in the columns, instead of at the bottom as in the current design - this reduces its effectiveness by crowding the information into a much smaller space (squeezing two columns into half the space previously used by three columns), and makes it seem less important than it is. No differentiation can be made between one panel and the next - one consequence is that readers may be confused as to which panel each edit link refers to (particularly the one at the bottom of "Where to Watch", which looks as if it could equally refer to the "Editing Memory Alpha" panel). The panels should be clearly delineated as separate entities. Overall, what purpose does a general redesign in this manner serve? Why can't the issue of uneven column lengths (apparently the only major issue with the current design) be solved using the existing, long-tested, and much cleaner code, instead of creating additional templates, layouts, and style requirements? -- Michael Warren | ''Talk'' 08:01, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :I thought I would throw in the opinion of someone who checks MA daily, but rarely contributes. I very much like the idea of even columns, however that is achieved. It consistently gives me a little jab or annoyance when one column is so much longer than the other. But then again, I'm pretty nit-picky about those sorts of things. In any case, I realize that most people agree that even columns are better, but like I said, I just wanted to add the opinion of the "average" user. Rogue Vulcan 11:27, 31 March 2008 (UTC) ::Thank you for responding DarkHorizon. The reason why we cannot accomplish "panel evenness" with the current code is due to the fact that each panel is an individual panel. The way that we can accomplish "panel evenness" is by incorporating them into one table, with each column acting as a panel. Nat.tang 17:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC) :::I've fixed some of the areas you've pointed out: :::# reduced some of the coding :::# columns now share 50-50 :::Nat.tang 18:44, 31 March 2008 (UTC) In response to your question about positioning, The swap was a random decision. However most of the section positions do have a purpose. On the left side we have AOFW and DYK as they present the different articles and facts. On the right side we have the latest news (I've reduce the number to 4) and the trek history. both of them present events and dates. the positioning of the last two section were mainly based on their average length. As W2W was longer and AOFW and DYK together was shorter than News and History, W2W was placed on the left. Nat.tang 18:55, 31 March 2008 (UTC) scratch that...I've modified it so that it would have the same order as the current revision does. Nat.tang 02:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC) Comparison From Portal: Main: * :*''This line originates from the template.'' From an older revision of the new proposal: An example from the revision as of 19:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC): As you can see, I've reduced the coding. Nat.tang 19:23, 2 April 2008 (UTC) Voyager I'm sitting here watching TV and I flip through the channels and I found Voyager on Spike at 9:00 EST. Is this a one day thing or did they change times?--UESPA 13:06, 2 April 2008 (UTC) :It seems to be a new thing. It's been on since at least Monday, at that time, and it goes until at least Thursday. (There's something else on a 9:00 AM on Friday) Rogue Vulcan 16:19, 2 April 2008 (UTC) ::I think this may be a temporary affair. Over the next week or so, the late night schedule has lost any and all consistency, some nights it is UFC, some nights CSI, etc. DS9 has completely left the schedule during this period, as far as I can tell, not returning until its normal 2 AM slot on 8 April. --OuroborosCobra talk 16:28, 2 April 2008 (UTC) April 5, 2008 First Contact Day is coming this Saturday... April 5, 2063 will be only 55 years away... Any features planned for the site to celebrate? :I'm not really sure. Maybe a mention in the news panel?– Cleanse 00:32, 3 April 2008 (UTC) Maybe an admin could put something like this somewhere? --From ''TrekkyStar''[[User Talk:TrekkyStar| Open Hailing Frequencies]] 15:40, 3 April 2008 (UTC) First Contact Day! Todays April 5, 2008 and Memory Alpha's celebrating. 55 years to go... Some page that will help. Star Trek: First Contact; Vulcans; Vulcan First Contact ::Hrm... no. -- Sulfur 15:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) 'First Contact Day!' ''Todays April 5, 2008 and Memory Alpha's celebrating. 55 years to go... :::How about this? A little less cheesy. --OuroborosCobra talk 15:47, 3 April 2008 (UTC) ::::I'm not convinced about either one. Maybe an addition to that days "This day in Trek history" panel? -- Cid Highwind 17:03, 3 April 2008 (UTC) :::::Maybe we could try a simple message on MediaWiki:Sitenotice... Nat.tang 17:44, 3 April 2008 (UTC) World War III - Eugenics War - Third World War Is there someone who can help me? I remember having read about a possible clarification of the fact that WW III and the Eugenics Wars are always messed up, something like Spock (?) in "Space Seed" (?) talking about the "Third World War" which could also mean the "Third-World War" (bearing in mind that Khan and his followers were in power in third-world countries in the late 1990s. Thanks --Emissary77 17:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) ::Your question might be better located here at the Reference Desk, as this page is for discussion of the Portal page only.--31dot 17:52, 8 April 2008 (UTC) Editing the Article of the Week panel I can't find where the Article of the Week panel itself may be edited, but there are two grammatical issues that need resolving: the word "of" should be added before the word "an" in the second sentence, and words following colons (as occurs in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph) shouldn't be capitalized unless they are proper. I'd appreciate knowing how to edit that panel, it isn't the same as the featured article itself (the grammar of which is impeccable). Jstealth 06:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC) :Go to Template:ArticleOfTheWeek, and click "edit this article" at the bottom of the blurb.– Cleanse 06:31, 10 April 2008 (UTC) Monaco skin Hullo! I am Kirkburn, your friendly local Wikia Gaming Helper! Many Wikia wikis are switching over the default skins (for anon users) to our new skin "Monaco" this month. Most of the big wikis have already switched (i.e WoWWiki, Wookieepedia Dofus and FFXIclopedia). Monaco is now the main actively developed Wikia skin platform. As a successor to Quartz, it comes with even more customizability - you can find out more on Customizing Monaco (on Wikia Help); you can also find out info about the new features and widgets available. An admin can set the default site skin via the skin section on , or by editing MediaWiki:AdminSkin. If users wish to see another skin than the default, they can untick "See custom wiki skins (recommended)" on the same page. We really want wikis to move on to Monaco partly because it's more awesome than Quartz and Monobook and partly as it is where the bulk of our resources are currently aimed :) Please report any problems or questions with Monaco here For Memory Alpha, to get the skin working on monaco, you could do as WoWWiki has done. We have a custom skin defined in MediaWiki:Monaco.css and our skin set to monaco-custom. It shouldn't be too difficult to port MA's theming to that. WoWWiki also supports dark and light skins, which would probably also be useful for MA too look at. Thanks for listening! Kirkburn (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC) :Just for clarity - who is switching what, when? :From your comment, I didn't quite get whether switching to Monaco as the default skin will be a community choice ("we ''want wikis to move", "admin can set") or if it is something done by Wikia staff definitely, and definitely now ("we are switching"). Could you clarify this? -- Cid Highwind 13:25, 10 April 2008 (UTC) ::IMO, I think that Monobook works fine and is probably the best skin for MA at this point in time. I've seen the monaco skin used on other wikias and IMO, compared to Monobook, the layout is bulky and the ads, especially the google ads, fit better on Monobook. And this seems to be a "want it to happen" and not a "needs to be done". Nat 16:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC) To clarify, it is a community choice; however, one that we highly recommend due to the extra stuff the Monaco skin gives you. However, a separate issue would be to make MA light skin compatible so that those who wish to use other skins, can. WoWWiki went through a similar process last year, and it's been very useful. I'd be happy to give you advice on how to do it. Kirkburn (talk) 16:46, 17 April 2008 (UTC) : Update - tweaked my intro text above for clarity. See Forum:Monaco skin for a mock-up of the new skin and to continue the discussion. Cheers. Kirkburn (talk) 12:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)